To the Editor: Dr. Makoto Mannami performed kidney transplantation from unrelated living donors with renal diseases, including renal cell and ureteral carcinomas between 1993 and 2006. Incidences of organ trafficking were exposed among the patients treated by Dr. Mannami, and as a result, the problem of the so‐called restored kidneys with renal diseases came to light. The Japan Society for Transplantation, the Japanese Urological Society and the Japanese Society of Nephrology formed a special committee to investigate the medical practices of Dr. Mannami and issued a joint statement in May 2007 stating that the medical practices were flawed from both medical and ethical viewpoints. As a result, the following problems became clear: 1Lack of documented informed consent of the donors and recipients. As Dr. Mannami commented in the newspaper, there was no record of explanation about the operation of donors and recipients.2False mentioning in an operation record and flawed operative technique in donors from the standpoint of a cancer operation. Dr. Mannami claimed as follows: All patients/donors agreed to undergo total nephrectomy. The lesions were removed/repaired ex vivo on the back table and then transplanted. All recipients were notified of all possible risks including donor disease recurrence (1Mannami M Mannami R Mitsuhata N et al.Last resort for renal transplant recipients, ‘restored kidneys' from living donors/patients.Am J Transplant. 2008; 8: 811-818Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar). However, the above description is clearly falsified. ‘Tumors were removed on the back table’ is incorrect. We investigated the patients' records under the supervision of the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. According to the operating record of donor/patient, aged 74 (left ureteral cancer; stage pT2), the left kidney was first removed for transplantation by transecting the left proximal ureter in the operating field and not on the back table, and thereafter, the remaining lower ureter with the tumor and part of the bladder were extirpated after the patient was shifted from the lateral to the supine position. This patient died of multiple metastases, including the lymph nodes, liver and lung at 239 days postsurgery. Transection of the ureter must be avoided because of the potential of tumor spill. Even in the traditional nephroureterectomy of ureteral tumors, the ureter as well as the tumor should be transected. The procedure of retaining the ureteral tumor in the donor/patient should be prohibited. The description of consent (p. 812), ‘In all recipients and donors, written consent forms with the patient signature of the operative procedure were obtained’, was also false. We investigated the case records of six donors/patients and interviewed four patients and two patients' families about informed consent under the supervision of the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. It is necessary for the patients to give documented, informed consent for the donation of kidneys and this donation should be clearly differentiated from the nephrectomy. We found that only one patient provided documented, informed consent for nephrectomy and kidney donation. Three patients gave oral, informed consent and doctors recorded it in the patient case records. Only one patient gave informed oral consent and no record was made. One patient received no explanation in the hospital where the patient underwent donor nephrectomy. Dr. Mannami, himself, said in an interview, ‘I have operated more than 600 kidney transplantation but I have never obtained documented informed consents from any donors and recipients. Those are not really necessary’. The surgical procedures for these eight patients with ureteral cancer were not conducted properly. We have to warn professional urologists, transplant surgeons and physicians that these surgical procedures—transection of the ureter in vivo and the late timing of ligation of renal vessels with no formal documented, informed consent, and carrying out donor nephrectomy for patients with ureteral cancer—are not reasonable.